RFC: EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi!

On 04.07.2007 15:52, rob myers wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:29 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [...]
> If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL he should
> first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
> 
> If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to
> participate in EPEL then the EPEL maintainer can request the branch
> directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently).  The
> EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch request,
> so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in EPEL as
> well.
> 
> If it's unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package participates in
> EPEL then the EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora maintainer and ask
> about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at hand.  If there
> is no answer within seven days the EPEL maintainer is free to request
> the EPEL branch (CC the Fedora maintainer here as well). If the Fedora
> maintainer later wants to participate in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer
> of the package should hand primary per release maintainership back to
> the Fedora maintainer (and become comaintainer, if interested).

We approved this in this weeks meeting and I added it to the wiki. But
on fedora-devel a problem with the last part was raised; see

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg00332.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-July/msg00334.html

Therefor I'd like to change the last sentence of the policy to this:

If the Fedora maintainer within less then 1 month wants to participate
in EPEL, then the EPEL maintainer of the package must hand primary per
release maintainership back to the Fedora maintainer (and become
comaintainer, if interested), if he's interested. If the Fedora
maintainer at a later point in time wants to participate in EPEL and get
his package back then the EPEL maintainer should strongly consider doing
so, but doesn't has to.

How does this sound?

CU
thl